the national archives has talked about how 80 different libraries and collections, just in the last decade or so, have called and said oh, we found classified documents in these papers. and they have a process that usually is to turn those back in. but then, we have the issue with president biden, immediately after that we had the issue with vice president pence. and i think it's important to understand that this is a common occurrence, and the president thinks that we should fix it. like, he gave all of these documents back, he knew he did not, that these governments should, the government should be in possession of these documents. and so what we are going to do, is the president going to appoint a task force to approve how transitions look at classified material, to ensure that there are better processes in place. so that when staffs -- are packing up boxes to try to get out during a transition as quickly as possible, at the same time and up until the very moment, that they are still governing and doing matters of state, they are going to try to make recommendations that that can be fixed. and he is going to appoint a senior government leader to do that.

we're gonna have more on that soon. >> in 2017, when he had classified -- material >> -- >> in your advocacy here, and in the presidents counsel writing back to mr. burr, you are saying that there were gratuitous comments, that there were false pieces of information. how is the american public supposed to process this, when we also live in a world where former president trump asserts that there was a politicized process that resulted in his prosecution related to classified documents, and other things? so for the public, if democrats and this administration say trust the department of justice, trust the institutions, but you are also arguing here, gratuitous political cheap shots and false assertions. how are they to process? this >> while i talked with this actually a minute ago, and i think when you have the former attorney general, when you have the former acting fbi director, when you have the former general counsel of the fbi.

these are experienced people at the justice department, who spent decades working at the justice department. and they are saying it is gratuitous. they are saying that it isn't appropriate, that it is inconsistent with doj policy and practice. that is them saying it. we agree, you know, you heard the president speak forcefully about this last night, you heard the vice president speak forcefully about this today. we certainly agree that it is gratuitous. but i explained this a little bit in the opening, we are in a very pressurized political environment. and when you are the first special counsel in history not to indict anybody, there is pressure to criticize, and to make statements that maybe otherwise he wouldn't make. and, i think it leaves you wondering why some of these critiques are in their. but i think it's also important to just fundamentally distinguish between the prior case that you mentioned, i want to be careful -- and the special counsel report goes into great detail about the great distinctions there. and i think it is important to understand of the criticisms you are hearing of the gratuitous comments in the report, which are wrong,

frankly, this is being shared by people who have deep experience at the justice department. >> on many issues related to memory, and certainly it seemed to prompt an angry response to the president, and from his advocates. is there anything being done to address that issue, in an ongoing way? obviously, council -- asking for some of those things to be removed. it is potential that -- could be testified in. >> are there any steps that the administration would take, addressing that specific issue, be it in relation to overall medical positions -- of the president, or other things to demonstrate what is the issue with memory, and is it a factor that deals with his capacity to serve? >> well, i have a lot of issue with the contents of that question. and -- has answered a lot about the presidents transparency and his medical records, and his physical and things of that nature. and, i will leave that to -- to handle.

but i will say, i just read you this, page 2:48. sorry, excuse me, later in the report he says, quote, we expect the evidence of mr. biden's state of mind to be compelling. pointing to him providing, quote, clear and quote, forceful testimony. i can explain why the report fears all over the place on this issue, i can just say, and as you've heard from the vice president, you've heard from members of congress yesterday, talking about their recent interactions with the president. one, congressman golden from new york, talk about his interaction with the president the day before this interview. when congressman golden was on the ground in israel, and the long and intensive in a detailed conversation they had about what was going on on the ground. we just reject that this is true, and i think that it does raise questions about the fortuitousness, and it makes you wonder why that is in there. >> thank -- you and thank you. >> so, you are discrediting some of the findings in this report. you are discrediting some of the observations of president biden. so, why should the american public except the conclusion

that -- war charges weren't warranted? >> i'm not sure i'm understand exactly what you are saying. >> you are claiming that much of the report is inaccurate. so, why are you so confident that the conclusion is correct? >> the solution is very obvious from the very beginning. it was a long, intensive, sort of meandering investigation, that came to the conclusion that in february of last, year everybody knew that this wasn't intentional, that this was an accident, that they were found, and as soon as they were found, the president said give them back, give them back as soon as we can and fully cooperate with everything. and to reach the -- it's a truth, and the conduct of the investigation throughout, and the gratuitous comments in the report, are troubling. and they are inappropriate. but, i think that the finding was the obvious one, because it is the truth. >> president biden blamed his staff, largely for the mishandling of documents, or where the ultimately ended up. does the president believe they did everything, right when it comes to handling classified material?

>> we'll just, again look at the report. i know it's long, but the report talks about how the evidence is that this is most likely packed up by staff church movements and transition, and things of that nature. so that's reflective of the report, it's not some accusation of the president, it's just true. and you guys, know you guys work with white house staff all the time. we support the principle, that is our job. and the principal relies on their staff to help them with things. and the president said this last night. he talked about how looking back, if he had, if he was more engaged in that process of packing and moving things to make sure things are being done the right way. and i think the most important thing to remember is once it was realized that something wrong and happened, he did everything right to get it back, and to fix the problem. >> what about all this stuff that you talked about that was in his home? in filing cabinets that were either locked or able to be locked, in his house. what stuff was he talking about? classified materials? >> i mean, the report goes on at length about this. i encourage you to read it, it talks about. >> last night -- he said the stuff in my house was all in

filing cabinets that were either locked or able to be locked. didn't he put them in his home? >> i'm not really following the question. i think that what's clear is, and i told us to just in a minute ago, he has personal diaries that he had. of course he has personal diaries, the documents that were taken were jumbled up in boxes, and found inadvertently in places. and that's what happened, so -- >> thank you. how concerned is the president, and the team here, that the, quote, gratuitous comments are going to damage him, damage public perception of him? >> i think the public is smart, and i think that they can see what's going on. i think that they see a president who fully cooperated, i think that they see a president who did the right thing, and make sure everything got back. and i think that they see that this was a long investigation that ended without a case to be made. and, i think that they can see and understand when people are gratuitous and make comments

that they shouldn't make, and that are beyond the agreement of a prosecutor to do. i think that they understand that, and i think that they will understand that the president did the right thing. here >> if the -- or obviously eu, the eighth and ninth were obviously very busy day is, where the president's overstretch, taking calls in the middle of the night, all of this. why continue with -- her, why not do it on another day? why given the opportunity to have these lines in the report about -- timelines >> he should have thrown up robach, is that what you're saying? >> i'm saying -- he >> i mean >> the world is on fire, couldn't we do it another day? >> i'll tell you what's interesting about this, and this is probably not in the report. at the beginning of his interview, the special counsel told the president, i understand that you are dealing with a lot of things right now, and i'm going to be asking you questions about stuff from a long time ago. i want you to try to recall, to the best of your abilities,

things of that nature. that is often what prosecutors would tell witnesses. so, he understood that. but the president was going to commit to being cooperative. he talked about this last night, he wanted to make sure he had everything he needed, he didn't throw roadblocks. >> just a -- has the president read the entire report? and, when was he given the report? did he review it when his lawyers took a privilege review, and do you have any context on what he himself found with the timings of this? >> we received the report yesterday, from the justice department, formally like sending it over. obviously, the presidents lawyers were doing the privilege review that we disclosed to everybody, that was -- when we concluded that. and so i think that they were, they had briefed him on the material, as the client, as is typical in a legal case. and then we receive the full report yesterday. the president has been pretty busy, i'm not sure he is right

for hundred pages, i'm not sure how many folks in this room have read all 400 pages of it. but he certainly is familiar of the contents of the report. >> just one quick follow-up. the president was animated last night, rejecting the idea that he did not remember when his son died. can you provide a little bit more context about, was he directly asked in the interview by the special counsel -- was a part of a broader conversation? just some additional context to understand what is in that report, and it might be helpful. >> yeah i mean, the president was pretty clear last night, and i think that the american people have heard from him for years about the pain and the suffering that they went through when bow passed away. and the gravity of, that and i think to suggest that he couldn't remember when his son died is really out of balance. you know, the conversations and the interview back and forth, it is being asked about file folders for my basement, and how did they get there, and what is that, and what were you doing around that, time and things of that nature. i don't i -- want to be very careful, i don't want to get into specific things while it

is still in the classification process. but, it is safe to say that of course, the president knows when his son died. >> did you have any sense of why the special counsel would -- in the report that the president did not, was unable to recall when his son died? >> you'd have to ask the special counsel why he chose to include that. >> thanks ian. so, you set that you told the special counsel that the criticisms of president biden were inaccurate, fortuitous, and wrong. so how did the special counsel respond when you told him that? >> i put out this report. >> so they -- >> i am unaware of any changes that were made, in response to our very strong, forceful, and rooted in evidence arguments that we provided. >> and you had just mentioned how these interviews happened shortly after the october 7th attacks. the president mentioned it last night. mentioning that, does that mean that possible memory lapses happened because he was so distracted by what was happening overseas? or do you dispute that he had any memory issues during those

hours -- >> i dispute that the characterizations about his memory that were in the report are accurate, because they are not. and i think that the president spoke very clearly about how his mind was on other things. i mean, he was dealing with a huge international crisis of great global consequence. and, he was trying his best to answer questions in this interview, because he wanted to be fully cooperative. >> so there were no memory lapses during a -- ? >> i think there's something important people should remember about the way that interviews like this happen. god for bid one of you guys ever have to get interviewed by a prosecutor, and i hope you don't. witnesses are told, as i mentioned by special counsel, to do the best they can to recall or remember things. and they are not supposed to speculate, they want facts, they want facts and evidence. and so, i think probably in almost every prosecutorial interview you could imagine, people have said that they don't recall things, because

that is what they are expected to do. so i think that is just important context to keep in. mind >> in september, the president was asked about trump's classified documents -- in mar- a-lago. he said quote, how could -- how could anyone be that irresponsible. but there were classified documents found in the presidents garage in a damaged cardboard box. so would that be considered irresponsible? >> look, i think the president made clear that he gave everything back as soon as he found out that he had. and, so i think that it is fundamentally incorrect to try to analogize the situation, and frankly the report says that to. and, the idea that he did anything except be totally cooperative and to take great strides to ensure that the classified documents were returned speaks for itself. >> thank you. and the vice president referred today to the report as being politically motivated. it is at the position of the white house of this report was politically motivated? >> i saw the vice president remarks, and i thought they were very powerful. and i talked about this a little bit at the top of our

conversation here today. there is an environment that we are in that generates a ton of pressure, because you have congressional republicans, other republicans, attacking prosecutors that they don't like. and, it creates a need, if you are going to determine that charges weren't filed, people are human and they are thinking through what do we need to do. and, it leaves one to wonder exactly why he included a lot of the criticisms that we're in. there >> also, with regards to the -- president biden has had some staff members who have worked for him for decades, and he referenced their mistake last night, as he had -- has he had a visit with any of the staff members? do those staff members who responsible for taking -- do they still -- have there been any consequences? >> i mean, i talked about this also before. this is an issue that has plagued administrations of both parties for 50 years, where accidentally, things get shuffled up and taken and

removed. and the archives has literally quite frequently asked questions page on their website, about what they do when the fire them accidentally, -- and he gave them all back, as soon as he found out about it. and we understand that the mistakes happen sometimes, i'm not going to get into individual -- in the report. >> president boma, president clinton, president bush senior president bush jr.. i don't know with three people makes it a common -- thing >> that's actually not true. officials from all administrations from the past half century or show have had that accidentally happen. >> but >> you are parsing two things, you asked about the fact, and the report states this clearly, it is likely the result of interest -- and, you asked exactly about the staff issue. and so i'm responding about the staff issue. >> and you can't say whether the staff still works for president biden? >> well i am saying that the question you are asking about the frequency and normalcy, unfortunately of mistakes like these being made, they happen.

and what matters is how you respond to. it and when you file there was a mistake that was, made you give everything back, and that is exactly what was done. >> thank you. what does it say about merrick garland's judgment, that he appointed someone who ultimately put out a report that was so agree, just so inappropriate, and -- flouted department regulations and norms? i think the president >> i think the president actually answered this question last night, i'm not sure which of you asked this. but -- and i really don't have anything beyond what he said. >> two things i was hoping you could talk about. the report says that in 2017, the president told his ghost writer that he just found all of the classified stuff downstairs. why did he not report that at the time? >> well, and this is included in the report as well, if you read through it. the president was talk about a handwritten letter that he had sent to president obama, that he faxed to him about the afghanistan policy in 2009. and, he says, and this is in

the report. and he said last night, i should have said sensitive, i should have used more careful language about that. because he was talk about something that was, like a letter he sent to the -- >> so in his mind, it was sensitive. but what he said was classified? >> yes, this is in a report. they talk a lot about how the president actually took great care when talking with his book writer to note things like hey, you need to be really careful with some of the stuff, i'm not entirely sure about. and, so i think that that is important to realize, that the report itself actually talks about what carrie took with this sort of information, as they explore all of the theories and go through all of the evidence that sort of refutes most of these theories, will actually all of these theories, when you think about the judgment that there will be no case in this matter. so, that is addressed in the report. >> the second thing. the president also said last night, all of the stuff that was in my home was in filing cabinets that were either locked or able to be locked. but the report says that some of the classified documents were in cabinet drawers, while

others of -- war in unsealed and badly damaged boxes, sitting in his garage. so did the president miss speak last night? >> look, i think the president was -- inaccurate allegations in this report. we talked a lot about, justin asked about the diaries, and this is his personal dryer, use of course he has them in his house. so i don't have anything to add on to this. >> i want to follow up on what the vice president's comments, you have been saying gratuitous, -- politically motivated. is it, is it this administration's stance that this report was issued in part, or there was a motive in this -- a go with this report to inflict political harm on the president? >> i think that you have to look at what. i mean, we talked about this at the beginning of our conversation today. you have a situation where former doj officials are talking about the political repercussions of these actions, and that it is incumbent upon the prosecutor to take great care to follow -- policy to not

criticize unindicted conduct or behavior, or characteristics which we have seen in this. -- >> former doj officials. but, this white house right now, is is it the stance by this white house, that this report was issued in part with a motive and a goal to inflict political harm on the president? >> i heard the question the first time, and i'm just, i have nothing to object to him with the vice president said. i thought she was powerful and forceful. >> also just to follow-up, i'm sorry. this administration, as you said, you said that republicans often attacked prosecutors -- >> and i said that's created environment, where -- there is an incentive by the special counsel to include some of this language. but, often i've heard from democrats and this white house say that those attacks against independent systems can also sow distrust with the public, and those independent institutions. by saying that this is politically motivated, not just gratuitous, but politically motivated, does this not also

sow distrust with the public? >> i reject that, i reject that question. you see this, and it's in the report, the letter that the president's lawyer and the white house counsel's office sent to the special counsel, to talk about the department of justice norms and policies that they see as being violated by some of the comments and remarks made in the report. and so, i think that is a false equivalence kind of question, because we have argued and we continue to say and believe is that you are not supposed to make these sort of things, according to justice department, policy. the president, when he ran, and you guys all know this because you've heard this, he talked about how important was to restore the rule of law. and he understands that, and he talked about this last night to mj's point, about the appointment of the special counsel, and how he felt about that. you know, this is a president who is committed to restoring these norms. and i think when we return reject to some of the gratuitous-ness in the comments that we are asking about, and you hear me talk about the

former attorney general and others who made this comment. they are criticizing that this does not follow those norms. >> -- any -- we've gotta -- [inaudible] >> the portion of the video and the transcript, where he was asked about his time as vice president, and about -- why not release those parts of the video. those are -- >> it's a transcript we are talking about, and i already addressed this with justin -- >> okay so, what you are saying is this was -- there is not tapes that you can release of that? >> i just responded, i think the question is about the transcript. >> no, as far as former attorney general holder is concerned, you referenced him and the -- review process, he brought that up in his tweet as well, -- what part of the normal doj review process is the white house saying is violated or -- ? >> while there is actually, it's an issue that's a little in the weeds, pardon me. but the special counsel regulations that exist at the justice department govern the process that is supposed to

happen here. and the justice department has its own manual of procedures. and as you've heard from those experts, you are not supposed to criticize unindicted conduct when you are making these determinations. >> okay so -- >> thank you, a follow-up and then a separate question. >> you said a ment ago that the president was responding to inaccurate information, when he claimed last night that all of the stuff in my home was behind large filing cabinets. is he entirely clear now at this point, we are all the documents were discovered? and does he now know his statement about large filing cabinets is false? >> the report lays out, in 400 pages of detail, all of the evidence and all of the review that they conducted and looking into this matter. the president made sure that all of the classified documents that were found will return properly to the government, which is what you are supposed to do, which is why this is the inevitable conclusion that there is no case here. >> that's not what i asked though. does he know that his statement yesterday, that all of the

documents were behind locked cabinets was inaccurate? is he clear in his mind. i know that last night was perhaps a stressful, confusing environment. >> i understand what you are trying to ask -- and i think that i've answered the question. >> and -- >> my follow-up question after that lack of a response was, -- if there is an eye-popping real moment in the report, specifically about the presidents ghost writer. and that was that after he learned from the special counsel had been investigating, he deleted some of his recordings. now those recordings were able to be recovered, when i'm curious about is, can you say definitively whether or not the president or anyone else at the white house was in contact with his ghost writer? >> this is in the report. i mean, read the report. in the report, it says that they sought, that they look into this, and that they didn't. so >> -- we're gonna wrap this up. >> thank you so much. and two questions, just for clarification. from the white house counsel's office. you're not a lawyer, correct?

>> that's correct, i'm a spokesperson. >> okay. any chance we'll get the white house counsel to come out here and answer questions -- >> should i be offended by? that i mean >> i get offended all the time. >> i mean, come on? >> you did say something that was factually -- >> i, there has been a previous question. >> finish your question please? >> i was asked to come today by your colleagues in the press corps, and we happily obliged. >> as you know, former president trump, he was charged with a slew of criminal charges related to classified documents in his possession. including council -- willful retention of national defense information. in this report, it's made clear by the special counsel that president biden willfully retained and disclosed classified material, he kept it in unsecured locations, after's vice presidency, which presented, according to the special counsel, a serious risk to national security.

so my question to you, ian, is can you explain to every voter out there, every american, why it is that president biden essentially is let off the hook, and former president trump is now facing this slew of criminal charges, which seem to most people very -- >> great wind of john. i mean that was really a good wind up. i talked about this already. page one, willful retention. page 2:15, there is a fact a shortage of evidence on this point. the report itself goes through in great detail, the facts and evidence that led to the obvious conclusion that there was no case here. the report itself answers the question you are asking, about the distinction between two cases, as you guys have heard us from the white house say for a long time, we are very careful about commenting on certain cases like that. just, i would encourage, you perhaps all do you to read the report. >> and that's the reason why i asked that question. and the reason why so many people seem confused, because you hear willful retention of

national defense information related to trump, willful retention of classified material related to president biden. and yet, one individual is facing criminal trial being brought by the department of justice in fort pierce, florida. and the other -- one >> sure. and i think i've talked to many of you over the last 24 hours about this. the allegations that there is willful retention of documents is refuted by the evidence in the report. and the conclusion was made, directly, that the evidence does not support that claim. he explored the theory, it is in the rampage, to everyone focused on. i'm exploring the theory of willful retention, but the evidence as a whole was insufficient, because that is not with the facts show. >> thanks, really patient. guys >> thanks >> to the previous special path -- that did not result in biden -- 's. and -- >> okay, thank you. i will say referred to the

white house special counsel, and not special counsel, but legal counsel, they are. okay, event. over >> skipping two questions, following up on -- >> it president biden called the military -- over the top. i and this comes after the white house is pretty consistently defended israel's conduct. what has changed, and what exactly did the president mean by over the top? >> yes so first of, all i would say nothing has changed his position hasn't changed, -- we don't think his messaging has changed. we don't believe his messaging has changed. this isn't something, it isn't the first time he has done so, what you heard from him yesterday. look, the president made it very clear in his comments that he was obviously talking about israel's conduct in gaza. and he has been clear, he has been clear that the united states wants to see hamas, a terrorist organization, defeated. he has been very clear on that. that is a shared goal that we

have obviously with israel. but at the same time, at the same time while we have said that, we have been also very clear, the president has been very clear that they must do so by ensuring that their operations are targeted and conducted in a way that they are protecting innocent civilians. and that is something that we have been incredibly consistent about here, in this administration. we want to make sure that we are also protecting innocent civilians. so, that is what the president was speaking to yesterday. he was asked, obviously a direct question and he answered. that >> we are going to step away from the white house press briefing right now, to review what we just heard from a spokesperson for the white house counsel -- . he laid out the white house's defense, in this scathing report from the special counsel, detailing president biden's handling of classified documents. ian sams concluding saying that there was no case there, this

case is closed. there were some disputes, specifically about details that we're in the report that the white house feels were gratuitous and inappropriate, and not in line with guidelines, norms you could say, practices. >> in their opinion,. yes >> from their perspective of the department of justice >> he also tried to make clear several points of contention between the white house and the special counsel's, over what the president actually did in regard to classified information immaterial in conversation with his ghost writer. we have cnn's evan perez with us to go over that. evan, the specifically they argued that president biden, in his conversations with the ghost, writer didn't cross the line in detailing what was in his personal diaries, and his personal journalist, that contains some classified information. the actual report details that boundaries were crossed their >> yes absolutely. boundaries were crossed. and by the, way the president

in his comments, named some of the problems with the staff. he said that obviously some of his staff was responsible for moving boxes, and so on. and that is that may be true. but the most egregious part of this report is the conversations that the president had with than former vice president, had with his ghost writer 2017. and that happens during a time that is -- that is him discussing what, according to this report, that the former vice president was discussing classified documents, or classified information, with the ghost writer who was not cleared to receive that information. that is a problem, and it is plain as day that is on him, that is nobody else's fault but him. but his fault. and so, that is, part of the effort by the white house, in ian sam is very capable of trying to defend what the president is trying to say.

but, they are sort of misfiring on some of this. because again, the report makes clear that the line was crossed in these interactions. now, we haven't heard, we haven't heard these recordings, we haven't heard some of the evidence here, for us to be able to judge whether robert -- is portraying this correctly. they are saying, they are disputing some of this. so we will wait. by the, way one of the most important things that ian sams seem to be open, to at least in his remarks, where a reporter asked about releasing some of these materials, investigative materials. now let me tell you this, the justice department now considers this investigation closed, which means republicans are going to be asking for the materials that are behind this investigation, -- putting in freedom of information request. which you to access some of this information, and there is no reason why it should not be released. ian sams on the podium just now, just now said, it will be reviewed based on whether the class of information -- but it seems as -- which so, the only

way it would not be released is if the president declares, or asserts the executive privilege -- that he wants to assert. one final thing i want to just quickly talk you guys about is, one of the things that the president's lawyers are pushing, is this idea that this was out of the norms of the justice department, that robert hur exceeded the regulations, or violated the regulations by producing this report. the problem here is that this is a special counsel, and a special counsel is required to produce a report. so this is basically usually what the justice department calls -- a memo, right. and they are ugly, they are not pretty documents, because they lay out everything that was found in the investigation. and then, for to explain why they are not prosecuting, and we don't normally see these documents. but because this is a special counsel investigation, it was

required for this to be produced. and let me tell you, if merrick garland, the attorney general had looked at this report, and found fault with some of the language, the stuff about the elderly, -- with a faulty memory, that stuff, and asked for it to be removed, it would trigger a number of consequences. it would have to require for that to be reported to congress, and that would become a whole new scandal. so, it is a problem, and i understand why they don't like the report. but these are the regulations, and this is not a violation of the justice department norms or regulations. >> yeah, it's very important that you note that, evan, as the white house is attacking this as inappropriate. and also, inaccurate and gratuitous, those are the words they are using your. i want to get now to david axelrod to talk about this. you heard that david, not ruling out the possibility of releasing a transcript, that that would be something that is pretty extraordinarily. i don't believe we saw transcripts released in, for instance, the mueller

investigation. and, he may have not ruled it out, ian sams, but he also raised that possibility that there may be some classified information, so there is a way to back out of it. would you want that released, if you were advising the president? >> i don't know what's in the transcripts. if i were advising the president, and i knew it was in the transcripts, and the transcripts bore out what the president said, yes, i would want them released, if the transcripts don't or out with the president said, probably not. but here is the thing, this is lai a steak thrown in the middle of a bunch of hungry dogs, when it comes to the house republicans, who want to keep this thing going, and want to highlight this issue. and so, they've already signaled this morning that they're going to try and dislodge some of this material. i don't know if they can, but just the effort to get it will keep the story going. so, this is a sticky wicket for

the white house. i thought ian sams, i agree with evan's analysis, ian gave a brilliant job there of handling those questions, and keeping the focus on the issue of the documents, and how the president handled them, how it differs from trump. but there's a difference between the legal issues and the political challenge >> reporter:. the political challenge is, fair or not? and i do think that what the special counsel put in that report, it seemed gratuitous and unnecessary. those words are out there, and you can't and ring the bell. and, this creates an additional political problem for a president, who is already facing questions among voters about his age and his capacities, that are based largely on his performance by other cameras, who -- present has done a very competent job, -- and you can see that in a

variety of ways. but, that is not the road in which we live, the world in which we live is that people see you on camera, and that is how they judge you, and it is a problem for the president. and the special counsel's words have sort of -- that whole issue. and it's a problem that was unresolved by his press conference. >> david axelrod, appreciate the analysis. we have much more coming up on this news coming for the white house, and from this scathing report, in just moments. stay with cnn.

all right, we are just following this a white house response to the special counsel report. and specifically, the white house is not ruling out a redacted her transcript being released. but of course, that is still very much tbd. i want to bring in paula reid, if you could just tell us what the biggest takeaways were to you here? >> well -- ian symonds is actually the right person to come -- out he has been the ones who handled -- throughout this investigation.

the president has not only the white house counsel, he also as outside counsel bob barr, who has been helping him shepherd through this process. but, i am not sure if that press conference really resolve the issues that they now have, in combatting some of these -- findings in the report. and also i'm going to reiterate what evan said. special counsel rob hur, as part of his appointment, he is required to issue a report, there have been comparisons for example to a former fbi -- talking to the hillary clinton -- or other prosecutors. we have the special counsel required to issue a report. james comey was not required to come out and talk about that case, traditionally, prosecutors not publicly talk about cases when someone is not charged. but it is different with the special counsel. and the most comparable example is of course the report from former special counsel robert mueller. it was incredibly critical of former president trump, and many of his associates. it was equal in length to rob her's report. there are no page requirements, right, for any real restrictions on the special counsel.

they are expected to comport with the justice department norms. and i think intelligent minds, including our norm, can disagree with what this means. and if he did go outside of the lines. but in speaking with witnesses who were interviewed in this case over the past year, as we have broken a lot of stories on this investigation, they described -- as someone who is meticulous. he would call multiple times about the same question that in their minds was pretty minor. where did people, set what were they doing, who lifted the box? he was meticulous. so, if he included these details, and this is someone who is being described to us as, again, taking this very seriously, and being meticulous. he understood there would likely be charges. instead, he wanted to offer the public a detailed report. and we will likely have an opportunity to hear from him one more time, at as it is highly likely that he will have to testify, as robert mueller did before congress. >> norm, you disagree that this report was gratuitous, that it crossed the line, and some of the assertions specifically

about president biden's memory. >> not the report, boris, the by and large, the report is on the money. i had -- clearance, i was the lead white house drafter on the executive order governing the classification and handling of classification documents. biden did not properly handle these documents. i agree with the report also, no criminal intent, because he cooperated. unlike president trump, his failure to cooperate both proves intent of breaking the law, and holding the documents, and obstruction. but this happens, i've been working with the special counsel investigations for over three decades. there are always a few points of disagreement. and that is what that white house press conference was like, was about. and i think the white house has a point, in calling attention to practice protocol and policy. that's a quote from the inspector general report,

criticizing jim comey when he made these kinds of gratuitous remarks about hillary clinton. >> the special counsel -- 's >> that point. paula, the principles of federal prosecution section seven 60, prosecutors must be sensitive to the privacy and reputational interests of uncharged parties. that applies to all prosecutors. and my point, i've been struggling with it for the past 24 hours, i called my fellow ethicists, people who deal with it every day. all over the country, what do you think? i called the bush ethics czar, and we've come to the view you know, what there are a few lines in here that are gratuitous digs. the former attorney general agrees, i think it violates justice department policy, practice, procedure, protocol, and norms. >> but a question, not that he would completely ignore the issue of memory, if he thought that it was jermaine as to why

he could not charge biden. because, it appears that it was jermaine. but what you are saying is, i mean for instance when you look at the wards hazy, fuzzy, faulty, poor, different court. those are different quotes describe his memory, that it was just too much, that it should have been more minimized? >> no. >> because it wouldn't have ignored the issue altogether. are you suggesting that? >> he chose words that in the light of this standard, with uncharged parties, you have to be sensitive. >> which ones, which ones? >> i'm going to tell you the exact quote, the famous quote, that's going to go down in history, about the president being a, the president being well meaning and elderly, with a poor memory. i think that mr. hur knew exactly what he was doing there. >> what should he have said? >> i will tell you, i will tell you.

i will tell you, when witnesses talk about events spanning over half a century, it is very challenging to recall every detail. it is legitimate to say biden did not remember. but by string together those adjectives about age and memory, that was gratuitous. i don't want to criticize the special prosecutor, and i agree with biden did -- i think it went too far. he threw a bomb into the most hot button issue, in his political campaign by linking age and memory. i don't think it was necessary, witnesses of every age have a poor memory. if my wife is watching, forgive me. i can't remember the year we got married. >> you're going to have to work on that >> one but it's also putting this report out into a world with a former president who has been charged with mishandling classified documents, by a special counsel. and the average american may have trouble understanding okay, why was former president trump charged, when he had these classified documents far

more appearing to do this intentionally. and at least in one instance, appearing to have retained them because he disagreed with the assessment of a foreign policy situation, and wanted to prove something to someone. and that seems very comparable to the biden situation where -- he >> you know, he had to >> look at his notes. >> the politics are very tricky, and that's primes lie we've seen the white house and discuss this multi times. we will get to the baltics in just a moment i promise alex. but we do have a voice that worked at the doj, andy mccabe joins us now. andy, to the point that norm was making. if you are the special counsel, and you are trying to argue that a jury would look at president biden and see an elderly man who has issues with memory, someone that would be perhaps sympathetic, as a reason to not go after him and press charges of mishandling of classified documents, should not he then outline instances in his interview's, in which his memory was faulty? is that not something fair to put in this document to justify the fact that he didn't push

for charges? >> i think it is absolutely relevant to talk about the fact, or to refer to the fact in the report that a witness, a key witness, in this case the subject of the investigation, had a faulty memory about certain facts, that might bolster his defense of the charges. that is relevant to the special counsel's duty. but i agree with norm, it is the way that he characterized that, that faulty memory, that goes beyond what is necessary to communicate a potential weakness in your case. and actually wades directly in to a major issue and a current political race. and it is not the only example of that. there is all sorts of language in the very beginning of the report, where the special counsel refers to reasons why the president retain some of these materials, that he wanted to keep these materials, to document his legacy, and as evidence that he was a man of

presidential temper. now that is not cited to any interview, so presumably, that is the special counsel's conclusion about what the presidents motivations might have been. which is presented in what is undoubtedly a kind of distasteful, negative way. so, it is those characterizations that i think bring a very fair criticism to the way the report is written. >> and yet, when it comes to the politics of this. as you heard david axelrod say, you can't un-ring the bell. this is now out, there and republicans are certainly weaponizing. this >> well, they certainly are. and what norm talks, but when we talk about. the -- elderly this of this president is exactly what this white house does not want to be talking about. and yesterday, as we went to bed last night, the headline was president biden in fact ugly saying yes, i am elderly, but i know what the heck i'm doing. that is not with this white house wants to talk about, that is why we saw the vice president come out today and say this is politically

motivated. that is why we saw ian sams come out today, he did a tremendous job from a communications standpoint, shifting the narrative to these gratuitous criticisms of the president. or to put the finger on the scale, and politically motivated, to -- sow retribution to this president. that is what they would certainly much rather be talking about. the problem is, republicans are going to go back to what we heard yesterday. president biden has a problem with memory, he can't keep facts straight. and his press conference last night, his emphatic denial of, oh i don't have a problem with memory. if you are going to go out there with the fierceness he went out there and say oh i don't have a problem of forgetting things or being confused, you can't forget things or be confused. and he was, and so that is exactly what republicans are going to seize on. and in our own report pulling from cnn, 25% of the people that we polled felt as though president biden did not have the strength and stamina, and the fitness to be president. this place right into that, and we are seeing many republicans

already do so, asking for information. lindsey graham looks at this from a large perspective, how does this play on the world stage? this is very unnerving according to lindsey graham. we have others in the senate rick scott also saying if he can't remember details of being vice president. he should be commander-in-chief we do federal orders to continue to asked for transcripts for to say a lot of them not to if you want to say president biden transcripts of that interview will go a long way. >> thank you so much, paula and norm thank you to you and to andrew mccabe as well. the white house, firing back against this special counsel report. we will have more on this straight. ahead

i think he's having a midlife crisis i'm not. you got us t-mobile home internet lite. after a week of streaming they knocked us down... ...to dial up speeds. like from the 90s. great times. all i can do say is that my life is pre-- i like watching the puddles gather rain. -hey, your mom and i procreated to that song. oh, ew! i think you've said enough. why don't we just switch to xfinity like everyone else? then you would know what year it was. i know what year it is. i'm daniel lurie and i've spent my career fighting poverty, helping people right here in san francisco. i'm also a father raising two kids in the city. deeply concerned that city hall is allowing crime and lawlessness to spread. now we can do something about it by voting yes on prop e. a common sense solution that ensures we use community safety cameras

to catch repeat offenders and hold them accountable. vote yes on e. >> it's the super bowl shimmy. >> there it goes. the super bowl shimmy. >> it's like a chair wiggle is what it is. it's not good. >> this is the intro that has made briand a dance every time that we've played it. it is super bowl week, and the nfl is hoping this sunday's super bowl could be one of the most-watched ever thanks to this new phenomenon, the taylor swift effect. who is taylor swift? >> oh my gosh. and i guess with more. >> what's up, briand and boris? i've never seen so much focus about something going on

outside the lines, the most- watched television program in america has even more type, more intensity as the sports and entertainment worlds collide. >> shout out to the newest member of the chief's kingdom, taylor swift, who is officially reached the super bowl in her rookie year. >> shout out. >> thanks for joining the team. >> the nfl and loads of fans are embracing this romance. one thing you can bet on is that taylor swift is good for business, nfl viewership hitting all-time highs this postseason. >> she's rewriting the history books herself. i'll have to hold up my end of the bargain and comes home some hardware too. >> you're just a loser. >> why is everybody so mad about it? why is everybody so mad about it? >> this anger says nothing about taylor swift. it says everything about the men bothered by it. >> it's pretty clear that this has all been quite divisive, some supporting taytay, but others? >> we are boycotting.

>> and it's hard for me, because i have her on my running playlist and everything, so. my oldest son, max, and i are big swifties. nope. she did to us this week. >> listen to this. taylor's favorite number is 13. >> this is my 13th grammy. which is my lucky number. i don't know if i've ever told you that. >> this is super bowl lviii, 5+8 is 13. the games being played on 2/11. 2+11, 13. the chiefs opponent, the 49ers. 4+9 is, you get it. but seriously, though, this will be taylor's 13th game this season, leaving some conspiracy theorists to think the nfl is scripted. >> i don't think i'm that good a scripter, or anybody on our staff. >> has this first-ever biggest super bowl matchup been tailor- made? >> yup. it's true. many online say that getting the chiefs in the super bowl

so that swifties can boost ratings for the nfl even further was the league's plan all along. listen, i got a little excited when i realized that today, that during the taylor swift event on sunday, we're going to see a super bowl being played. actual football. can you believe it? can put weight. >> thanks so much. there's a game? just kidding. >> she's trying to be funny. stay with cnn new central. >> we'll be right back. >> stay with us.

i'm daniel lurie and i've spent my career fighting poverty, helping people right here in san francisco. i'm also a father